It has begun. New Republican totalitarian Congress to ban abortion after 20 weeks

Yes I understand that. Its a strawman. We are talking about the woman not the man. We already know men have no say in what the woman does. You have stated the woman can say no. However, the issue you missed is that she didn't say no, she said yes and therefore should be aware that pregnancy is a possibility. Following YOUR logic then if the woman doesn't want to be pregnant she should AS THE MAN IN YOUR ARGUMENT also say NO.

 

No it does not, consensual sex means they both consent to sexually intercourse which may or may not result in a pregnancy, there is nothing in the act of consenting to sexual intercourse that gives proxy consent to pregnancy. The best you can hope for is that consent to sexual intercourse is implied or informed consent to pregnancy . however implied or informed consent are only valid until the person explicitly, by word or action, says "no", from that point on both are moot.

You really need to stop making a fool of yourself and actually go away and learn what consent is and means in law.

I will keep saying it because it is irrelevant no matter how many times you try to claim it is not.

 

are you calling me a fool?

 

It is irrelevant whether the woman says no or not, the fact remains that consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of consent would understand that.

 

I asked you if you were calling me a fool. are you blinking?

 

Please read what I wrote - "You really need to stop making a fool of yourself and actually go away and learn what consent is and means in law." where am I calling you a fool?

making a fool of yourself - to do something which makes you seem stupid - http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/make+a+fool+of

You continuing comments that show your distinct lack of knowledge of consent laws and what they mean is making a fool of you, not saying you are a fool.

 

They got elected for their fiscal views, but I knew they wouldn't be able to resist messing with the social issues. I think they just shot themselves in the foot for 2016.

 

Yes, let's get back to the topic....how Republicans think that more restrictions on women are so important...more important than more jobs, a better economy, fighting terrorism, fixing infrastructure, fair taxation, affordable health care....... they want to make as hard as possible for poor women and children and that will never change...I hope Obama sticks to the promise to veto yet another attack on women and women's rights...

 

See, that's why Republicans pass anti-choice laws FIRST off when they get in power.

It's all a game to the Republicans. First they pass a bill to show "pro-lifers" they are "working for them and the unborn"....

But they KNOW that the President will veto it...heck, they WANT him to veto it. And then they want to drop the whole thing VERY fast so that they can hope that women, moderates, independents, etc. wo are pro-choice will "forget" about it in two years....since they will never bring it or anything like it up again over the next 20 months.

Then....in the GOP Presidential Primaries and local GOP elections in Red Districts in late 2016....they revive it once again when they go to the gullbile "pro-lifers" and say "Re-elect us again...and elect a GOP President...and we'll get H.R. ### passed NEXT time.".....and the naive anti-choicers line up at the polling places and vote a straight GOP ticket.

If the GOP doesn't take the White House but keep a House of Congress, they start the whole thing all over again.

If the GOP has the White House AND Congress....they pass a bill first thing in office....that they KNOW will be over-turned in the Courts.....and the Pitch to the gullible "-lifers" is "Vote for us AGAIN...and we'll nominate judges who'll keep #### intact."....

and the anti-choicers fall for it again. It's pretty much SOP for the GOP for the past 35 years now.